Tony – I don’t agree with your argument – but at least we are clear on the point of disagreement.
I will let the operator community comment on how your approach appeals to them. Speaking as someone who (like you) gets called in to unravel problems in customer networks, I sure don’t want to leave ourselves vulnerable to something which is so easily broken. This means more late nights for me. 😊 Les From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 2:12 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] Generic metric: application-specific vs application-independent Les, [LES:] Node R1 uses metric-type A for Application X and metric type B for Application Y. Node R2 uses metric-type B for Application X and metric type A for Application Y. Both nodes are advertising both metric-types. But neither node is aware of the inconsistency because nothing in the metric advertisement indicates how to make the metric-type/app association. Clearly this is a problem. Are you arguing that it is up to the operator to make sure that they associate the same Metric-type with the same application by making sure node configurations are consistent? Yes. More specifically, the management plane code should be debugged. It is not the control plane protocol’s job to debug the management plane. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
